The judge in the landmark Apple v. Samsung patent case today ended a three-month-old sales ban on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, giving Samsung a small victory after its crushing $1 billion loss to Apple.

One of the bright spots for Samsung in last month's verdict was the jury ruling that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 did not infringe a design patent. The tablet did infringe other Apple patents, but not the one that was the basis of a sales ban on the Tab issued on June 26 by US District Court Judge Lucy Koh. Samsung attempted to get the ban overturned after the jury ruling, but it had also previously appealed the June 26 injunction to a higher court. As a result, Koh was unable to overturn the injunction immediately since she no longer had jurisdiction. Jurisdiction was returned to Koh Friday with a US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling allowing her to decide the issue, and she promptly granted Samsung's motion to dissolve the sales ban today (PDF).

Koh dismissed an argument from Apple that the court should wait until post-trial motions are resolved before deciding whether to end the sales ban. "The public has no interest in enjoining a non-infringing product, and thus any market disruption caused by dissolution would be insignificant compared to Samsung's interest in restoring its product to market," Koh wrote today. In addition to granting Samsung's motion to dissolve the injunction, she retained the $2.6 million bond Apple posted as a condition of obtaining the preliminary injunction.

The purpose of this bond was to pay Samsung's costs in the event that it was wrongfully harmed by the sales ban, but whether Samsung will see any of that money has not yet been determined. "The question of whether Samsung was wrongfully enjoined is inextricably intertwined with the Court’s resolution of the post-trial motions," Koh wrote. "Accordingly, the Court will retain the bond pending resolution of the post-trial motions." The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is not Samsung's newest tablet, so the amount of lost sales may be minimal.

Apple is stealing other people's ideas, and has been for years. One day, someone is going to get a good attorney, with a tech background, that will lay it all out there accurately, and a judge will do the right thing and excoriate them.

More importantly this is a much needed precedent. Had Apple have won this one anyone making any tablet would have been in hot water because the design patent was pretty much the tablet form factor itself.

Apple is stealing other people's ideas, and has been for years. One day, someone is going to get a good attorney, with a tech background, that will lay it all out there accurately, and a judge will do the right thing and excoriate them.

Please don't deny yourself the luxury of breathing while waiting for that to happen.

Apple is stealing other people's ideas, and has been for years. One day, someone is going to get a good attorney, with a tech background, that will lay it all out there accurately, and a judge will do the right thing and excoriate them.

So the judge will tell them off? Give them a good dressing-down? I wouldn't mind that.

So, will we now see appropriate repentance from those dingbats in the last thread who were saying that the "biased" Judge Koh would find a way to not dissolve the injunction?

"The purpose of this bond was to pay Samsung's costs in the event it was wrongfully harmed by the sales ban, but whether Samsung will see any of that money has not yet been determined. "

I dont trust her, it seamed like she was forced into it.. If she denied them now , would make her look bias.

Yeah, riiiiight. From, you know, actually reading the article: "Koh was unable to overturn the injunction immediately since she no longer had jurisdiction." - in other words she wanted to but couldn't. But as soon as jurisdiction was returned to her she "promptly granted Samsung's motion to dissolve the sales ban today".

So, will we now see appropriate repentance from those dingbats in the last thread who were saying that the "biased" Judge Koh would find a way to not dissolve the injunction?

"The purpose of this bond was to pay Samsung's costs in the event it was wrongfully harmed by the sales ban, but whether Samsung will see any of that money has not yet been determined. "

I dont trust her, it seamed like she was forced into it.. If she denied them now , would make her look bias.

Yeah, riiiiight. From, you know, actually reading the article: "Koh was unable to overturn the injunction immediately since she no longer had jurisdiction." - in other words she wanted to but couldn't. But as soon as jurisdiction was returned to her she "promptly granted Samsung's motion to dissolve the sales ban today".

Gosh. She's really biased...

Old news but your not changing my opinion. I'd be more willing to let it go if it wasn't clear that almost every other court in the world has been getting it right, and only the US court and a US jury failed to reject these obvious, unjustified patents. yes. I think shes bias .. so what? and to quote myself:

"If she denied them now , would make her look bias" Shes not stupid enough to shot herself in the foot, IF she was. I think she is..

So, will we now see appropriate repentance from those dingbats in the last thread who were saying that the "biased" Judge Koh would find a way to not dissolve the injunction?

"The purpose of this bond was to pay Samsung's costs in the event it was wrongfully harmed by the sales ban, but whether Samsung will see any of that money has not yet been determined. "

I dont trust her, it seamed like she was forced into it.. If she denied them now , would make her look bias.

Yeah, riiiiight. From, you know, actually reading the article: "Koh was unable to overturn the injunction immediately since she no longer had jurisdiction." - in other words she wanted to but couldn't. But as soon as jurisdiction was returned to her she "promptly granted Samsung's motion to dissolve the sales ban today".

Gosh. She's really biased...

Old news but your not changing my opinion. I'd be more willing to let it go if it wasn't clear that almost every other court in the world has been getting it right, and only the US court and a US jury failed to reject these obvious, unjustified patents. yes. I think shes bias .. so what? and to quote myself:

"If she denied them now , would make her look bias" Shes not stupid enough to shot herself in the foot, IF she was. I think she is..

You're implying that she wants to deny them, whereas in fact the exact opposite seems to be the case.

Apple is stealing other people's ideas, and has been for years. One day, someone is going to get a good attorney, with a tech background, that will lay it all out there accurately, and a judge will do the right thing and excoriate them.

So, will we now see appropriate repentance from those dingbats in the last thread who were saying that the "biased" Judge Koh would find a way to not dissolve the injunction?

"The purpose of this bond was to pay Samsung's costs in the event it was wrongfully harmed by the sales ban, but whether Samsung will see any of that money has not yet been determined. "

I dont trust her, it seamed like she was forced into it.. If she denied them now , would make her look bias.

Yeah, riiiiight. From, you know, actually reading the article: "Koh was unable to overturn the injunction immediately since she no longer had jurisdiction." - in other words she wanted to but couldn't. But as soon as jurisdiction was returned to her she "promptly granted Samsung's motion to dissolve the sales ban today".

Gosh. She's really biased...

Old news but your not changing my opinion. I'd be more willing to let it go if it wasn't clear that almost every other court in the world has been getting it right, and only the US court and a US jury failed to reject these obvious, unjustified patents. yes. I think shes bias .. so what? and to quote myself:

"If she denied them now , would make her look bias" Shes not stupid enough to shot herself in the foot, IF she was. I think she is..

Koh DID reject Apple's patents as being probably invalid but then got overruled on appeal.

Apple is stealing other people's ideas, and has been for years. One day, someone is going to get a good attorney, with a tech background, that will lay it all out there accurately, and a judge will do the right thing and excoriate them.

Yeah, you're probably right. I am definitely willing to believe if you provide sources, citations etc. because we know you have lots of examples of their copying, yeah?

Anyway. I'm glad Judge Koh over-turned this injunction. It was definitely not a violation of Apple's design patent, I feel at least. Good on 'em.

So, will we now see appropriate repentance from those dingbats in the last thread who were saying that the "biased" Judge Koh would find a way to not dissolve the injunction?

"The purpose of this bond was to pay Samsung's costs in the event it was wrongfully harmed by the sales ban, but whether Samsung will see any of that money has not yet been determined. "

I dont trust her, it seamed like she was forced into it.. If she denied them now , would make her look bias.

Yeah, riiiiight. From, you know, actually reading the article: "Koh was unable to overturn the injunction immediately since she no longer had jurisdiction." - in other words she wanted to but couldn't. But as soon as jurisdiction was returned to her she "promptly granted Samsung's motion to dissolve the sales ban today".

Gosh. She's really biased...

Old news but your not changing my opinion. I'd be more willing to let it go if it wasn't clear that almost every other court in the world has been getting it right, and only the US court and a US jury failed to reject these obvious, unjustified patents. yes. I think shes bias .. so what? and to quote myself:

"If she denied them now , would make her look bias" Shes not stupid enough to shot herself in the foot, IF she was. I think she is..

Koh DID reject Apple's patents as being probably invalid but then got overruled on appeal.

Im aware of this.. but my point was and opinion is : I feel that she is bias. Its not anything personal against you or meant to sound rude in my response towards your comment, but its my opinion. I dont trust her.

So, will we now see appropriate repentance from those dingbats in the last thread who were saying that the "biased" Judge Koh would find a way to not dissolve the injunction?

"The purpose of this bond was to pay Samsung's costs in the event it was wrongfully harmed by the sales ban, but whether Samsung will see any of that money has not yet been determined. "

I dont trust her, it seamed like she was forced into it.. If she denied them now , would make her look bias.

Yeah, riiiiight. From, you know, actually reading the article: "Koh was unable to overturn the injunction immediately since she no longer had jurisdiction." - in other words she wanted to but couldn't. But as soon as jurisdiction was returned to her she "promptly granted Samsung's motion to dissolve the sales ban today".

Gosh. She's really biased...

Old news but your not changing my opinion. I'd be more willing to let it go if it wasn't clear that almost every other court in the world has been getting it right, and only the US court and a US jury failed to reject these obvious, unjustified patents. yes. I think shes bias .. so what? and to quote myself:

"If she denied them now , would make her look bias" Shes not stupid enough to shot herself in the foot, IF she was. I think she is..

Koh DID reject Apple's patents as being probably invalid but then got overruled on appeal.

Im aware of this.. but my point was and opinion is : I feel that she is bias. Its not anything personal against you or meant to sound rude in my response towards your comment, but its my opinion. I dont trust her.

Apple is stealing other people's ideas, and has been for years. One day, someone is going to get a good attorney, with a tech background, that will lay it all out there accurately, and a judge will do the right thing and excoriate them.

So I suppose you could list at least 3 of the most egregious thefts they have made...

Thanks Ars for the Ignore button, I just used it like 6 times in a row in a single thread. So many tasteless comments -- ASPD seems to be common these days.

Announcing that you're ignoring people is nearly as trollish and tasteless as the people you're ignoring in the first place. Just click the button and move on if it's that important to you - there's no need to call attention.

As for this ban being lifted, it doesn't really mean much. It doesn't invalidate the tactics and reasoning Apple uses as the basis for its lawsuits. There was just a decision that in this instance, the Galaxy 10.1 didn't meet the criteria that Apple has defined.